Author Topic: Bitshares and anonymity  (Read 6672 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

I have goals with incomplete solutions, but I believe a solution does exist.    See if the free market were to create a system that through voluntary cooperation could handle crime and in fact keep government employees accountable then it would slowly decay the influence of governments world wide until they were no longer necessary and no one had to worry about invading foreigners.

I think this is the mental trap people fall into, believing that only one country could find freedom without it spreading world wide.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
How is forcing someone to go to war and kill someone not genocide in itself?  If there really is something terrible going on then you will have plenty of voluntary support.

So you don't believe in just wars? Terrible stuff goes on all the time and governments oppress people everywhere. The only thing I've ever seen stop it were other governments who forced their people to go to war. Citizens within the country aren't going to be able to stop it without support from governments outside the country.

As a result that is why we have a CIA/KGB/SVR/FBI and all those three letter agencies. They overthrow governments or they defend their status quo.

The point I'm making is the weapons to oppress and genocide the world already exist. There is nothing we can do now except stop making more and protect the world from what exists. I don't think we can avoid war and I think the threat of war sometimes can protect rights and lives. I think in some cases a war is the only answer to save innocent lives and I don't think humans in mass will step up to save lives of people they don't know without being drafted or compensated in some way. I don't think the money to compensate them could exist without taxes.

So for that reason we are stuck. If the USA decided to get rid of taxes then the other governments of the world would gain a dominant advantage and people in the USA would be oppressed by the tentacles of other governments who don't believe in any human rights. So our rights wouldn't be defended if there is no military to defend them.

The ideas you speak of are theoretical and I'm not convinced that ordinary people can stand up to trained mercenary armies.

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bytemaster

Well I think the problem we face here is the assumption that just ONE country would have freedom and thus have to defend itself against aggression from neighboring territories with governments.    I am suggesting that a free market solution would indeed be global and thus there would be no governments anywhere once a market based solution to securing our liberty (against government intrusion) is found to be effective.


For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline bytemaster

How is forcing someone to go to war and kill someone not genocide in itself?  If there really is something terrible going on then you will have plenty of voluntary support.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Quote
Taxes were important because in a time of war it's more ethical to tax people and pay for the war than to not pay for the war.

Forcing one person to pay for a war they want nothing to do with is hardly ethical.   Without taxes there could be no war.  Thus taxes are the root cause of war and the reason why we do not have world peace.

A ruler-less society cannot be conquered by an invading army without genocide because the people would not be conditioned to accept a new authority.

Some wars were necessary. How else would something like genocide be stopped if people aren't forced to go to war to stop it?

 
Quote
Taxes were important because in a time of war it's more ethical to tax people and pay for the war than to not pay for the war.

Forcing one person to pay for a war they want nothing to do with is hardly ethical.   Without taxes there could be no war.  Thus taxes are the root cause of war and the reason why we do not have world peace.

A ruler-less society cannot be conquered by an invading army without genocide because the people would not be conditioned to accept a new authority.

There are arguably plenty of charismatic leaders who would jump at the chance to commit genocide, and who are quite capable of recruiting followers with or without the support of an established government.  That said, with access to better communication regarding such situations, there are also arguably plenty of people willing to stand up to such people with or without the support of an established government.

I don't believe that is possible. Only governments have the weapons necessary to take down genocidal tyrants. How are we supposed to protect human rights without war? The people who abuse human rights don't just stop on their own and the threat of war is the only thing that protects human rights anywhere.

You could say we have no human rights, but if we were to ever have it then it would require some kind of military to enforce it.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 06:25:11 am by luckybit »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bytemaster

Quote
Taxes were important because in a time of war it's more ethical to tax people and pay for the war than to not pay for the war.

Forcing one person to pay for a war they want nothing to do with is hardly ethical.   Without taxes there could be no war.  Thus taxes are the root cause of war and the reason why we do not have world peace.

A ruler-less society cannot be conquered by an invading army without genocide because the people would not be conditioned to accept a new authority.

There are arguably plenty of charismatic leaders who would jump at the chance to commit genocide, and who are quite capable of recruiting followers with or without the support of an established government.  That said, with access to better communication regarding such situations, there are also arguably plenty of people willing to stand up to such people with or without the support of an established government.

Exactly, market demands will create voluntary solutions for the common defense.    However, there is a limit to how much people are willing to voluntarily consume of their own resources to fund a war against someone far away that they have never met.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
Quote
Taxes were important because in a time of war it's more ethical to tax people and pay for the war than to not pay for the war.

Forcing one person to pay for a war they want nothing to do with is hardly ethical.   Without taxes there could be no war.  Thus taxes are the root cause of war and the reason why we do not have world peace.

A ruler-less society cannot be conquered by an invading army without genocide because the people would not be conditioned to accept a new authority.

There are arguably plenty of charismatic leaders who would jump at the chance to commit genocide, and who are quite capable of recruiting followers with or without the support of an established government.  That said, with access to better communication regarding such situations, there are also arguably plenty of people willing to stand up to such people with or without the support of an established government.

Offline bytemaster

Quote
Taxes were important because in a time of war it's more ethical to tax people and pay for the war than to not pay for the war.

Forcing one person to pay for a war they want nothing to do with is hardly ethical.   Without taxes there could be no war.  Thus taxes are the root cause of war and the reason why we do not have world peace.

A ruler-less society cannot be conquered by an invading army without genocide because the people would not be conditioned to accept a new authority. 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
tax:  money taken at gun point (or through fraud) with passive acceptance of the majority
robbery:  money taken at gun point (or through fraud) with passive un-acceptance of the majority

The amount of money collected by force (via taxation) to punish thieves is greater than what is stolen by the thieves.

I am very well aware of other perspective, but I firmly believe that you cannot hold two contradictory views and be right about both of them.  Simple logic.  It is clamming for anyones mind to NOT have to resolve ambiguities and to engage in cognitive dissidence and double think.  Such mental shortcuts are preferable to admitting to themselves  that at the end of the day they are willing to kill someone (their own family even) who merely disagrees with them.  They justify these shortcuts to resolving such double think by declaring the situation ambiguous rather than opening their eyes to see the truth. 

I agree that humans biggest desire is to lower their fear, this is why they seek power over others.  It is fear that causes people to resort to theft and governments and tyranny.    The opposite of fear is love and love is not afraid of what others might do in the absence of force because love would never kill someone over a disagreement.

So while we cannot control others, we can control ourselves.  We should advocate love and not fear.

I understand the problems with taxation as a means of solving every problem. People seem to think if we just tax and spend that the government can solve any problem. Taxes were important because in a time of war it's more ethical to tax people and pay for the war than to not pay for the war.

But taxes were actually cut during the last war (at least for the people who aren't middle class), while the middle class tax rate stays the same. The middle class salary stays the same, the cost of living rises (which makes no sense with our technology).

Something is broken. I accept taxes are necessary for war and government is good at war, making UAV's and mega weapons. What about everything else? At some point the tax and spend model breaks down because math says it must break when there are more people without jobs than with jobs.

So the private sector must have a greater role or society is going to collapse in my opinion. It might take 5 years, might take 10 or 15, but taxes cannot go up forever, less jobs will be created as businesses and technology becomes more efficient and then who are they supposed to tax?

I read an article that Cryprus is going to give something like guaranteed minimum income, but how do they plan to pay for it?
To do stuff like guaranteed minimum income you must somehow expect infinite economic growth, infinite job growth, and to somehow perpetuate the current system forever. I don't think we can do that for another generation before it will collapse politically.

But they are free to try it and I hope it works for the countries that give it a try. I'm just skeptical about how they could do it with inflationary fiat currencies, loads of credit and loads of debt on top of the taxes and job losses.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
Quote
Now I have no interest in starting a debate about who is being ideological or closed minded, so please don't take anything I have said personally.  I am arguing with the ideas, not with you as a person.
Dont worry I dont take anything in a bad way :)

Quote
This single statement implies some assumptions I reject.  By saying it cannot be solved by a market you imply it must be solved by force.  As such you have given up looking for market solutions and accepted the shortcut of force.... that the end (solving the free rider problem) justifies the means (government force). 
I would like to be proved wrong because the state solution is faulty! The prevailing soultion is to have an agreement of as many people as possible (on questions like taxes (yes, no, how) etc.). And you are rigth there is force (mostly the thread of force) applied to those that dont agree. Most states exclude some unalienable rights from these agreements. But, and I think you agree, the process can be faulty (what is unalienable? Also the definitions of these unalienable rights can be bent) and with the non-unalienable rights rarely all will agree.

But the "state system" does deliver some things: It protects most rights which most people agree the be most valueable and those are (basically: see faults above + possibly corrupt law enforcement) granted to all individuals (if the state system if working right!) in the same way independent of the economic possibilities to afford these rights. There are a few more things but that is the core I would say.

A differnent solution would have to improve upon this system.

All I wanted to say is that any solution should be approached from the same neutral standpoint and dis- and advantages of any system should be taken seriously. This is the responsinility of any actor that can have an effect on peoples lives in an indirect way.

edit: I will read the article you suggested as soon as I find the time to.

The state doesn't protect rights, we do. You cannot put the responsibility on the state to do anything that you wouldn't be willing to do. The state is as flawed, as biased, as broken as everything else in society.

The state is good at coercion, killing massive amounts of people, propaganda, taxing people, and we all give to the state. To keep up the illusion that the state protects us, the state gives welfare benefits and other social programs so that people feel as if they need the state to live. This encourages inherent dependency on the state and people are raised to believe that the state is like a parent to them and their children. This is no different than the ruse that the church pulled in the past at the peak of it's power. Organized religion convinced people into thinking that the God was the father of man and Jesus the son of God, the father of the church was the father of society, that the man is the father of the household. This led to the divine right of kings and was used to encourage people into accepting the rule of man in place of the rule of God.

The ultimate centralization of authority resulted. The state was meant to be an evolution away from feudalism and the divine right of kings. It was founded upon certain principles designed to protect the liberty of the individual but it does not mean that the state is necessarily the most efficient protector of individual liberty.

I'll go on record and say I'm not very ideological. But I do agree that if you can solve societies problems in a way which does not require a concentration of power into the few, but which benefits everyone, then why use the state if you can do it in a better way?

I don't think every function of the state will be replaced. I do think a lot of the social programs can be done better than how the state is doing it, more efficiently, and that the solutions people developed over 100 years ago need competition from the private sector. I will admit that the private sector as it is today cannot solve problems such as poverty and that is why we have the state playing the role of Robin Hood. But the problem of poverty is sometimes exacerbated by the state which enforces artificial scarcity to maintain the status quo.

You can be a capitalist but if everyone does not have access to capitalism then you create poverty based on the fact that only people in certain clubs can access capitalism. How many people out there who are young, educated and American but they don't own any assets? They don't have stock, they don't have bonds, they don't have trust funds, they could get a loan for college but not a loan to start a business or to buy capital assets.

Why is it we are willing to give young people a loan to go to college but we wont give young people a loan to invest in dividend paying capital assets? Why are there artificial barriers to keep unsophisticated investors from being able to invest but they will let anyone buy a house or a car? Why is it so hard to get investment to start a business but so easy to go into debt getting degrees?

And that is just in the United States. In some other countries people young and old don't even have bank accounts. Who decides where investment goes? If we have crowd funding then we do, but if it's centralized then who decides? The central bank? So if there is a war then hundreds of billions or trillions get invested in that but not very much investment for solar or decentralized renewable energy generation?

The state is not going to change anything. Only the private sector can make changes in accordance to the will of the market participants. And I'm not saying that because I think the state can't be used, but because people have been trying to use the state for generations without much success but those people wont even consider trying a different approach. Use whatever approach works with the least amount of violence.

Bitshares does not require violence. The state does require violence. Violence is not in any of our self interest but many people choose to use it as the first resort which is bizarre to me. If you empower the state with the death penalty, or the ability to tax one group of people, who is to say that those powers wont be turned on your group of people in the next election?

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bytemaster

tax:  money taken at gun point (or through fraud) with passive acceptance of the majority
robbery:  money taken at gun point (or through fraud) with passive un-acceptance of the majority

The amount of money collected by force (via taxation) to punish thieves is greater than what is stolen by the thieves.

I am very well aware of other perspective, but I firmly believe that you cannot hold two contradictory views and be right about both of them.  Simple logic.  It is clamming for anyones mind to NOT have to resolve ambiguities and to engage in cognitive dissidence and double think.  Such mental shortcuts are preferable to admitting to themselves  that at the end of the day they are willing to kill someone (their own family even) who merely disagrees with them.  They justify these shortcuts to resolving such double think by declaring the situation ambiguous rather than opening their eyes to see the truth. 

I agree that humans biggest desire is to lower their fear, this is why they seek power over others.  It is fear that causes people to resort to theft and governments and tyranny.    The opposite of fear is love and love is not afraid of what others might do in the absence of force because love would never kill someone over a disagreement.

So while we cannot control others, we can control ourselves.  We should advocate love and not fear.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Quote
So lets focus on ways of protecting rights without violating anyones rights.   First rule of protecting someones rights: do no harm.   Modern approaches to protecting rights goes something like this...  "you were robbed, so lets go rob someone else so we can track down and punish that thief".   It would be better to let the thief get away with it than to become a thief yourself.  Especially because in 99.9% of all cases,  you end up robing more from others in the pursuit of this thief than the thief robbed from you in the first place.   
Specifically, what kind of robbery do you mean that the states does in the case described?

Quote
I must laugh out loud at this claim... the state system systematically violates every possible human right.  It kills more people, robs more people, terrorizes more people, than any organized private crime could by several orders of magnitude and does so with the approval of the majority.     Why am I more afraid of government than I am of private criminals?  At least there is something I can do about private criminals to defend myself.
... you are being sarcastic. I always depends on the perspective. I agree that what you said is a valid perspective. BUT IT IS ONLY ONE AND A VERY ONESIDED PERSPECTIVE. It is so hard to find people that look at things from different perspectives and acknoledge them all. It is calmming for anyones mind to not have ambiguities. It makes things easier. But it is not realistic and sometimes harmful. Humans biggest desire is to lower their fear and therefore try to build a consistent word perception system. Shortcuts (no ambiguities) are easy but not realistic.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 07:14:28 pm by delulo »

Offline bytemaster

Quote
But the "state system" does deliver some things: It protects most rights

I must laugh out loud at this claim... the state system systematically violates every possible human right.  It kills more people, robs more people, terrorizes more people, than any organized private crime could by several orders of magnitude and does so with the approval of the majority.     Why am I more afraid of government than I am of private criminals?  At least there is something I can do about private criminals to defend myself.

So lets focus on ways of protecting rights without violating anyones rights.   First rule of protecting someones rights: do no harm.   Modern approaches to protecting rights goes something like this...  "you were robbed, so lets go rob someone else so we can track down and punish that thief".   It would be better to let the thief get away with it than to become a thief yourself.  Especially because in 99.9% of all cases,  you end up robing more from others in the pursuit of this thief than the thief robbed from you in the first place.   

For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline santaclause102

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
    • View Profile
Quote
Now I have no interest in starting a debate about who is being ideological or closed minded, so please don't take anything I have said personally.  I am arguing with the ideas, not with you as a person.
Dont worry I dont take anything in a bad way :)

Quote
This single statement implies some assumptions I reject.  By saying it cannot be solved by a market you imply it must be solved by force.  As such you have given up looking for market solutions and accepted the shortcut of force.... that the end (solving the free rider problem) justifies the means (government force). 
I would like to be proved wrong because the state solution is faulty! The prevailing soultion is to have an agreement of as many people as possible (on questions like taxes (yes, no, how) etc.). And you are rigth there is force (mostly the thread of force) applied to those that dont agree. Most states exclude some unalienable rights from these agreements. But, and I think you agree, the process can be faulty (what is unalienable? Also the definitions of these unalienable rights can be bent) and with the non-unalienable rights rarely all will agree.

But the "state system" does deliver some things: It protects most rights which most people agree the be most valueable and those are (basically: see faults above + possibly corrupt law enforcement) granted to all individuals (if the state system if working right!) in the same way independent of the economic possibilities to afford these rights. There are a few more things but that is the core I would say.

A differnent solution would have to improve upon this system.

All I wanted to say is that any solution should be approached from the same neutral standpoint and dis- and advantages of any system should be taken seriously. This is the responsinility of any actor that can have an effect on peoples lives in an indirect way.

edit: I will read the article you suggested as soon as I find the time to.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 06:35:39 pm by delulo »

Offline bytemaster

Quote
This is a freerider problem and can NOT be served by a market.

This single statement implies some assumptions I reject.  By saying it cannot be solved by a market you imply it must be solved by force.  As such you have given up looking for market solutions and accepted the shortcut of force.... that the end (solving the free rider problem) justifies the means (government force).   

The free rider problem is a economic fallacy:  http://www.simpleliberty.org/taota/the_free_rider_fallacy.htm

So while you argue utility and against ideology, I argue principle.  My principles are very simple and are the foundation upon which everything I am working toward is built: namely don't do unto others what you don't want others doing unto you.       If that ideology gets in the way of so-called potential solutions then they obviously are not complete solutions.   

I recognize your greater point though of being open minded about potential solutions, my only point is that you shouldn't rule out market solutions to problems with a broad assumption as that is being closed minded and ideological...

Now I have no interest in starting a debate about who is being ideological or closed minded, so please don't take anything I have said personally.  I am arguing with the ideas, not with you as a person.


For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.